Posts made by Jeffrey C

It's so hard to reduce this to just 40, but I'll give it a go.

1. Maybe I'm Amazed

2. Band on the Run

3. Junk/Singalong Junk

4. Calico Skies

5. Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey

6. Another Day

7. Every Night

8. Venus and Mars/Rock Show

9. Mrs Vanderbilt

10. My Love

11. The Pound is Sinking

12. Call Me Back Again

13. Dear Friend

14. Heart of the Country

15. My Brave Face

16. Jenny Wren

17. Too Many People

18. Let Me Roll It

19. Live and Let Die

20. Big Barn Bed

21. Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five

22. Little Woman Love

23. C Moon

24. Jet

25. Love in Song

26. Hi Hi Hi

27. Tomorrow

28. One of These Days

29. The Lovers That Never Were (demo version)

30. No More Lonely Nights

31. Bluebird

32. Junior's Farm

33. Winter Rose/Love Awake

34. Ballroom Dancing

35. Here Today

36. Take It Away

37. Monkberry Moon Delight

38. Back Seat of My Car

39. Soily (live version)

40. Daytime Nighttime Suffering

I've had to leave out so many great songs. The older songs outnumber the more recent songs, but I can't help that - those are the songs I grew up with. And my two favourite Beatles era demos (which are almost solo) are the lovely voice/guitar demo of Goodbye for Mary Hopkin, and the one-man band demo of Come and Get It for Badfinger (both of those are gems).

Here's a question - who sounds as good as they used to 30 or 40 years ago? Most artists' voices change and most of them lose some of their range.

There might be some exceptions - I saw Steve Winwood supporting Steely Dan a few years back and he hadn't lost any range in his voice. Mick Jagger, surprisingly enough, seems to have maintained his range. Even more surprising, so has David Crosby (how is that possible, given his previous lifestyle?).

Elton John's voice has changed, it's certainly deeper. Both Leonard Cohen and Lou Reed spoke songs more than sang in their later years (neither ever had a great range, but fantastic voices nonetheless). Bob Dylan, of course, is pretty raspy these days, but can still deliver a song. Before her recent health problems, life-long smoker Joni Mitchell's voice had gotten much deeper (still sounded great). Joe Cocker always struggled for those high notes in later years, but that was part of his appeal.

Many singers, including Rod Stewart and John Mayer, have completely lost their voices for a while and had to work to get them back. No doubt they had many trips to throat specialists.

Paul's voice has certainly changed, probably a result of smoking for much of his life rather than too many gigs or recording sessions. But the point is, he can still deliver a song. I've just watched the Austin City Limits show and really enjoyed it. Paul still gives it everything, he's still playing great, and the band is sounding brilliant. Sure, Maybe I'm Amazed is never going to sound quite as amazing as it once did, but he still does the difficult songs (actually, most of them are difficult) and has plenty of positive energy on stage. To me, he's remains an inspiration.

Always fond of C Moon. Probably sounds unique because they had a bit of fun and swapped instruments.

I love the way Paul misses his cue but manages to work that into the song. Yet another example of him almost effortlessly coming up with a melodic little gem. Not a major song in his catalogue, but I often like the hidden gems that not everyone loves. He was so prolific at this stage and his voice was at its peak, I reckon.

What can I say - all the great ones are there. Taxman, Good Morning, Good Morning, Maybe I'm Amazed, and you could throw in a bunch of songs from Band on the Run. I didn't even know he played the solo on Helter Skelter, always thought it was George.

According to Mark Lewisohn's great Beatles book (still waiting patiently on part two), Paul set out to be a lead guitarist but changed his mind after fluffing his solo in Guitar Boogie at the first Quarrymen gig he played. A rare occasion when Paul didn't persevere, but I guess he wanted to focus on his singing. And it did lead to him saying: "John, I know this young bloke named George ... " so I suppose it was meant to be.

I'll have to add my 2 cents' worth after reading lists from other folks. It's all very subjective, of course, but I must say I lean to the older albums. Many of the albums have some flaws, but you can say that about any artist or band (well ... the Fabs did make some perfect albums). However, I've even come to love some of the quirks and flaws (except maybe Ou Est Le Soleil? .... what a terrible way to finish a strong album).

1. Ram

2. Venus and Mars

3. Band on the Run

4. McCartney

5. Tug of War

6. Back to the Egg

7. Red Rose Speedway

8. At the Speed of Sound

9. Flaming Pie

10. Flowers in the Dirt

11. Wild Life

12. Chaos & Creation in the Backyard

13. London Town

14. McCartney II

15. Memory Almost Full

16. New

17. Pipes of Peace

18. Driving Rain

19. Press to Play

I haven't included any of the covers albums (which includes the mostly forgettable Broad Street soundtrack), but I reckon Run Devil Run is the best of those. And the best live album is still Wings Over America for me. I'm also quite fond of Thrillington, but I'm not sure if it counts.

And I'm looking forward to Egypt Station.

And let's not forget a new restoration of Yellow Submarine, which is going to be screened in cinemas before coming out on disc.

There's definitely a 50th anniversary White Album in the works, once again with Giles Martin in charge of the remaster. I assume there'll be a 5.1 mix as well, like the Pepper anniversary release.

Good to see Wild Life and Red Rose Speedway on that list - long overdue for the deluxe treatment.

Well, I'm a sucker because I've bought many reissues for many reasons.

Often (but not always), there's been a big difference in sound quality, which has added a great deal to my appreciation of an album. Sometimes the reissue is a box set, which provides a lot more material, unreleased songs, a DVD, and a decent booklet.

Some releases have featured 5.1 surround sound mixes which radically alter how you hear an album. In the case of the fantastic Sgt Pepper 50th anniversary reissue, I prefer Giles Martin's new stereo mix to the surround sound, but it's all great. The new stereo mix is so much better than the old one and it's nice to have the mono version too.

Which albums should Paul not reissue? The only ones that wouldn't interest me much would be Give My Regards to Broad Street (same goes for the film) and Press to Play. But that's purely personal and I'm sure there are those out there who love those albums.

And I'm quite fond of McCartney II - it has a quirky edge to it and he's clearly having fun by himself in the studio. Paul having fun making music is always great to hear.

But if some fans aren't interested in any remasters and stick to their old versions, that's fine. I just don't think it's a rip off if you're genuinely interested in the artist (or band).

Thanks beatlesfanrandy for all of that info on the four reissues and Let It Be.

I always thought it was Paul standing in the way of Let It Be being restored and reissued, but it seems George was the one. I'm still thinking they'll wait until 2020. This year will be reissues of Yellow Submarine and the White Album, next year will focus on Abbey Road.

I hadn't realised Paul had signed a new deal, so it does explain reissuing albums that were out of print. Maybe it makes sense, but I'm still waiting on those "unloved" Wings albums from the '70s, because I still love 'em.

As the wonderful Take It Away podcast has shown, there's so much more to all of those albums and such a depth of unreleased and hard-to-find material.

Many questionable entries on that list (Huey Lewis & the News? Really?). And who puts Guns 'n' Roses (world's most overrated band) above the Beach Boys' masterpiece, Pet Sounds? That should be in the top 3.

And I'd definitely have Band on the Run and Ram on that list (at least). Didn't see much John on the list, maybe I missed them, but his first two albums should be there.

Pretty poor picture choices too (how about a photo of the actual Eagles?). However, I must admit I've got most of the records on that list!

Hi NancyR, don't worry, I took the money comment lightly, I don't think any of us would take back the cash we've spent on John, Paul, George & Ringo.

NancyR, what would that money be worth compared to the wonderful music and experiences? Not much, I'm sure you'd agree.

As Paul says: We always come back to the songs we were singing at any particular time. What an amazing influence they've had on millions of lives, and I've discovered so much other music because of them. For me, they're the launching pad for my love of music.

In regards to JL4761's comment, The Beatles not only saved rock 'n' roll, they reinvented it.

In effect, they invented the rock band. Before the Fab 4, all bands were backing bands, instrumental combos or vocal groups. After the Beatles, thousands of rock bands emerged that weren't necessarily backing a star front man, often with several singers, and mostly writing their own material instead of relying on supplied songs or doing cover versions.

The Beatles, more than any other band, turned the music industry on its head. Many may disagree, but I believe they had a more seismic impact than Elvis. Their impact is still being felt today.

How did the only two young rock 'n' rollers in Liverpool who were writing their own songs come to meet each other? Fluke? Fate? I don't know, but I guess it was meant to happen.

Thanks LadyLesie and NancyR, no argument from me in regards to 16mm.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and research. I reckon there would be plenty of usable extra footage and a deluxe version could certainly be compiled. It's been done with everything else The Beatles did.

As I said, if they managed to restore Magical Mystery Tour, it could certainly be done with Let It Be.

But it was an unhappy time for the band and I don't think Paul likes to revisit it (although engineer Glyn Johns, who's an honest, no-nonsense kind of guy, says he enjoyed the sessions because there was so much humour, particularly from John). It's part of history now and has been written about extensively, why not release footage that captures the tensions of those sessions?

I guess we'll have to wait and see if it gets some attention on the 50th anniversary, remembering it was filmed in early 1969 but not released until 1970.

I agree totally with SurSteven on Long's credibility. Why even listen to someone like that?

Any Beatles fan knows John Lennon had an acerbic side to his personality. He could be funny and charming, and he could be cruel. There was some violence in his character, but he wasn't much of a fighter. Let's not forget Paul got into scuffles too (including a big brawl with Stu Sutcliffe). They came from a rough background, after all (Ringo came from a very dangerous part of Liverpool, he was in a gang and often had to fight to survive).

John was nasty to Carole King the first time he met her (while Paul was charming, of course), and years later when they met on more friendly terms she asked him about it. He just said he found her intimidating and that was his natural defensive reaction. I think John did that a lot, particularly in his younger years.

And everyone knows he was a terrible drunk. Some people's characters change for the worse with booze and John was one of those people. That's why his carousing with Harry Nilsson, Phil Spector and others always had a nasty edge to it.

But when albums were getting out of control due to booze and drugs, like Rock and Roll (with Spector) and Pussycats (with Nilsson), John came to his senses, got sober and finished them in a professional manner. In both cases, he got away from LA and finished them in New York.

I think John's good side, great humour, campaigning for peace and incredible creativity easily outweighed his bad side, but he was human and had flaws like all of us.

Regarding Paul teaching John how to tune the guitar, this doesn't mean John was playing out of tune. As someone has already pointed out, John's mum taught him banjo tuning and chords. I think he was mainly using just four strings.

Paul taught him how to tune all six strings properly.

What I find really remarkable, was that Paul played Twenty Flight Rock and other songs on a guitar that was strung for a right-handed player. In effect, he played those songs upside down, which is an amazing skill (Hendrix could do that too, and some left handed players like surf rocker Dick Dale always played the guitar upside down). This fascinating detail is often left out of the John-meets-Paul story.

LadyLeslie, I'm not sure how the film was shot, but it was a Beatles feature film so it would be strange if it was 16mm. However, I don't know for sure.

Regardless, it was The Beatles, so the original footage would definitely be available. They've revised and remastered every other film, including Magical Mystery Tour (which was shot on 16mm for TV and originally shown in black & white), so I don't doubt they would have access to all of the Let It Be footage. Some of it showed up in the Anthology series.

No, I would say that Paul is not fond of the movie as it pretty much shows the Beatles starting to break up, including the famous altercation with George. As we all know, he also disliked the finished album, particularly Phil Spector's post-production contributions (hence the release of Let It Be Naked).

Perhaps they're waiting for 2020, which will mark the 50th anniversary of its release. This year will be devoted to a White Album deluxe release.

The original film from James Paul McCartney might be harder to find as TV networks didn't always keep that stuff.

Thanks daveross909, I do actually have a copy of the movie on DVD (with no extras).

But I'm still waiting on a deluxe reissue of some kind. As you point out, there was plenty of extra footage shot and I'm sure they could put together a fascinating "making of" doco. I realise the film itself is a documentary, but there was a lot going on behind the scenes.

Lots of extra music was recorded during those sessions too, including versions of Teddy Boy, Junk and All Things Must Pass, among many others. There might be footage of some of that.

And the James Paul McCartney TV special deserves a reissue too (perhaps it could be part of a deluxe Red Rose Speedway).

Thanks for your input on the new reissues, folks. I haven't heard anything about where the reissue series goes next, but from the sounds of some of your posts the older albums will get the deluxe treatment in time. Hope so.

And on this topic, I'm still waiting on a reissue of Let It Be (the movie). I wonder if that will ever happen. I get the impression that Paul's not too keen on the movie, but I could be wrong. It's certainly been completely ignored in all the Beatles' reissues.

Hi there folks,

this is my first post on the Maccaboard (but I'm not new to website and I've been a fan for ages). Sorry that it's slightly negative.

Just wondering, is anyone else disappointed with the new reissue series? Why reissue two (relatively) recent albums? They're both strong albums, but are they in need of reissue yet? And the Wings' Greatest compilation is good but probably made redundant by Wingspan.

Meanwhile, many of us are waiting for deluxe reissues of Wild Life, Red Rose Speedway, London Town and Back to the Egg. Surely it's time for these records to get some attention - and all of them sold well back in the day.

Maybe it's just me, but I reckon there'd be a lot of fans out there waiting on those '70s albums.